some were a reputal member claimed to have a letter or something from the ATF stating that a thread protector was not considerd a muzzel device. I have heard argument going both ways. in other words it was not a device that affected flash or recoil.
I would just like there to be a defenitv answer regarding it.

We all wish the laws and regulations were simple, direct and clear. That's not going to happen.
Remember that a letter from the BATFE binds them, if at all, only in favor of the addressee.
There should not be any confusion about this. The BATFE includes "muzzle attachments" (not muzzle DEVICES [check the sticky in this forum for confirmation if you need to]) as a countable part without regard to the function or lack of function. Therefore, if it attaches near the muzzle, you should consider it a muzzle attachment and count it.
Should you need further "proof" the AES-10 Bs that were equipped with a muzzle nut had them tack welded (thus making them part of the barrel). If it was not a countable part it would not have had to be welded.

Should you need further "proof" the AES-10 Bs that were equipped with a muzzle nut had them tack welded (thus making them part of the barrel). If it was not a countable part it would not have had to be welded.

I thought that was done to prevent threaded attachments from being added not a compliance issue. kind of like WASRS having no threads ect. however I could be wrong.

HMMM cant see why welding a imported part to a barrel would make it no longer a imported part. welding a trunion to a sheet metal reciver dosent make it a non countable part. a bayonet attaches to the muzzel is it a muzzel attachment as well I havent seen this adresssed?? like I said before I thought there was a letter from the ATF saying that thread protectors were not considerd muzzel attachments. I am not trying to say there not ,just that there was susposed to be documintation saying they werent counted as such.

Should you need further "proof" the AES-10 Bs that were equipped with a muzzle nut had them tack welded (thus making them part of the barrel). If it was not a countable part it would not have had to be welded.

I thought that was done to prevent threaded attachments from being added not a compliance issue. kind of like WASRS having no threads ect. however I could be wrong.

HMMM cant see why welding a imported part to a barrel would make it no longer a imported part. welding a trunion to a sheet metal reciver dosent make it a non countable part. a bayonet attaches to the muzzel is it a muzzel attachment as well I havent seen this adresssed?? like I said before I thought there was a letter from the ATF saying that thread protectors were not considerd muzzel attachments. I am not trying to say there not ,just that there was susposed to be documintation saying they werent counted as such.

Once the muzzle attachment is "permanently attached" (as the BATFE defines that) it is part of the barrel and is no longer counted seperately (because it is no longer seperate). Applying logic to problems of firearms regulation is a blind alley. Things are the way they are because the BATFE says they are that way, whether it makes sense or not.

Why would someone weld a muzzle nut to prevent muzzle attachments from being added? Muzzle attachments have not been banned under federal law since the ban expired in '04. You can buy a new rifle with threads and a muzzle attachment.

As I see it you have three options: Ask the BATFE
Count the muzzle nut
Don't count the nut and hope the law remains unenforced.

The Federal AWB ended in 04, but several states still have it in place permanently.

That's correct, but distributors sell rifles with threaded muzzles and removable brakes and flash hiders. In fact, the same importer that brought in the AES 10B sells WASRs with removable slant brakes. From the examples I seen, those were US made. Those I've seen that had a brake that was not US made had the brake tack welded to the barrel.
As for those who live in a ban state, it's up to them to comply with the state law - buy a rifle without threads, or get one with a tacked brake if that's legal.

Why would someone weld a muzzle nut to prevent muzzle attachments from being added? Muzzle attachments have not been banned under federal law since the ban expired in '04. You can buy a new rifle with threads and a muzzle attachment.

then why weld the nut there at all just leave it exposed threads and it would be worth more and sell better. welding a 2.00 nut only decreases the value of the weapon. to me it was done to prevent it from having a usable threaded barrel for some reason IMOA.

As I see it you have three options: Ask the BATFE

I agree with this option. again I swear I saw a letter on some site were the atf was not counting the muzzel not as a attachment or device. Its not a big deal to me just would like to see a defenitve answer that I thought existed in writting already.

Once the muzzle attachment is "permanently attached" (as the BATFE defines that) it is part of the barrel and is no longer counted seperately (because it is no longer seperate).

were is this stated in writting?? would be nice to have it as part of this thread. if a imported brake is welded to a non imported barrel were is the part considerd made?? or what about a imported barrel with a welded on US brake?

I have seen imported barrel blanks that are chamberd in the US advertised as 922 compliant. would adding a US Made attachment constitite building/finishing the barrel in the USA?

also what is the deal on a bayonete wouldnt it be a muzzel device/ attachment????

so if I stick this thing up an illeagle aliens ass is he now an imported muzzel attachment???? LOL.

I knew I read that there was a letter although HC apparently was unable to find it.

Originally Posted by bloodsport2885
Unfortunately no one has a letter or Federal definition to prove this.

this was posted by HC POOKIE

Yes, there is. I have seen it. MANY MOONS AGO. It was a scan of the letter to the tech branch. I believe it was on Gunsnet, before Gunco even existed.

It was a letter to the tech branch and it said the muzzle nut is not a "muzzle device" since it serves no function. The letter stated a thread protector (aka muzzle nut) is not countable as a part.

I say that, however I have looked everywhere for a copy of that scan, and I'll be darned if I can't find it. I know what I read because at the time, my NHM-91 was being converted from thumbstock to pistol grip configuration and I was counting and re-counting to make sure it was done right. I have a muzzle nut on it BTW.

Suddenly everyone thinks it is a countable US part. My concern is that people will be fooling themselves on their parts count in case anyone ever got called on the carpet about it. The definition of a muzzle device is that - a device. Thread protection is not a function of the muzzle, nor does it "interact" with the muzzle as would something that alters the visual element (flash hider), or the inertial element (muzzle brake). I hope that makes sense.

I know what I read, however my searches simply have been fruitless. So I can't prove I'm not crazy.

I suppose one of us could write the tech branch for a copy of the statement.

then why weld the nut there at all just leave it exposed threads and it would be worth more and sell better. welding a 2.00 nut only decreases the value of the weapon. to me it was done to prevent it from having a usable threaded barrel for some reason IMOA.

You'll have to ask Century why they didn't just leave it bare.
I can tell you from personal experience that it does not make the threads unuseable. 10 minutes with a Dremel, 3 minutes with a file and 30 seconds with some cold blue will render the threads useable and make the rifle appear as if the nut was never there.